On
behalf of the more than 2 million men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify on today’s pending legislation. With the conflict in
Iraq drawing to a close, withdrawal from Afghanistan on the horizon, and
proposals to scale back our nation’s active duty military, the VFW believes
economic opportunity for today’s war-fighters is a national imperative that
continues to demand the kind of decisive action we saw with last year’s passage
of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. Recent unemployment numbers indicate that
veterans of the current conflicts remain unemployed at a higher rate than their
civilian counterparts, with young veterans and female veterans experiencing unemployment
rates well over twice the national average. The VFW is happy to see that this
subcommittee continues to take this situation seriously, and we are honored to
share our thoughts on today’s bills in an effort to ensure our veterans have
the opportunities they have earned to succeed in a cut-throat economy after
leaving military service.

H.R. 3329, to
amend title 38 United States Code, to extend the eligibility period for
veterans to enroll in certain vocational rehabilitation programs:

The
VFW believes that our nation has an obligation to ensure that our
service-connected disabled veterans are employable, and this obligation has no
expiration date. Unfortunately, today’s service-connected disabled veterans are
relegated to a 12-year window in which to receive vocational rehabilitation, or
Voc Rehab, services. The VFW continues to believe that this delimiting date for
Voc Rehab services is unacceptable and we will continue to advocate for
Vocational Rehabilitation for Life. If our nation’s recent economic downturn
has taught us anything it is that industries constantly evolve. Job
descriptions can alter drastically and some jobs can go away altogether, which
is why service-disabled veterans must always have access to the training and
career counseling services available through Voc Rehab. The VFW is proud to
support H.R. 3329, as it extends the current delimiting date on Voc Rehab to 15
years. However, our organization believes that this delimiting date must
ultimately be eliminated altogether.

H.R. 3483, Veterans
Education Equity Act of 2012:

In
2008, the VFW played a key role in securing the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, offering
unprecedented educational opportunities for today’s veterans. The purpose of
the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill was simple: Offer
a free public education for those who served after 9/11. Unfortunately, since
the bill was designed to reimburse student-veterans at the cost of an in-state
public education, student-veterans who chose to attend private schools were
subject to wildly disparate reimbursement rates for their academic programs
based on geography. In an effort to offer an equitable benefit for
student-veterans who wished to attend private schools, Congress established a
reimbursement cap of $17,500 regardless of the state in which the program was
administered. Unfortunately, the $17,500 cap only applies to students-veterans
who enroll at private colleges and universities, meaning student-veterans
attending public schools are still only entitled to receive the highest in-state
tuition and fee payments, regardless of whether or not they meet residency
requirements for the state. As a result, many student-veterans who do not
qualify for in-state tuition face significant out-of-pocket costs to attend the
public school of their choice, unlike their counterparts whose education at a
private school may nearly be fully financed. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, this inequity affects 25,000-35,000 veterans each year; veterans
who may not have been able to satisfy residency requirements due to the rigors
of military life. H.R. 3483 will extend the $17,500 reimbursement cap for
non-resident public school student-veterans, and the VFW is proud to support
this bill. H.R. 3483 will ensure equitable reimbursement rates for all student-veterans
regardless of the academic program they
choose, as we intended.

H.R. 3610,
Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011:

The
“Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011” is an attempt to
reduce bureaucracy and increase accountability across all federally-funded
state workforce investments. For the purpose of this hearing, I will limit my
comments to the sections that directly impact programs for military veterans.

Currently
27 workforce initiatives receive federal funding, including Chapters 20 and 41
of title 38 and Chapter 11 of title 10. These three programs provide funding
for the Department of Labor Veterans Employment and Training Program (DOLVETS),
which funds the operations of the disabled veterans outreach program (DVOP)
specialists and local veterans’ employment representatives (LVER), the homeless
veterans reintegration programs, and military transition assistance program
(TAP). The VFW is concerned with how the bill affects the implementation of
these programs. The current veteran workforce program is not perfect, but it
already supports an infrastructure to train workforce employees, provides
employment outreach and training to veterans in local communities, offers $36
million in homeless veterans transitional housing grants, and provides
resources for service members to transition from military service to civilian
life. H.R. 3610 seeks to effectively terminate these specific programs, leaving
it to the discretion of the states to carry out veterans’ employment and
transition services on an ad-hoc basis.

At
a time when veteran unemployment is disproportionately high, tens of thousands
of service members are scheduled to leave military service, and veteran
homelessness appears to be in decline, the VFW believes that ending these
programs to reproduce them at a state level will be detrimental to the veterans
who rely on the services. Unlike other workforce investment programs, Department
of Labor’s veteran-specific systems have strict annual reporting mandates, and
frequent audits have demonstrated that the programs are cost effective in their
current form. Not only will H.R. 3610 appropriate equal funding for fewer veteran
services, but the bill will also reduce oversight of the quality and reporting
of employment trends by requiring reports only every four years. The VFW
opposes H.R. 3610 and encourages the committee to take the appropriate steps to
preserve veterans’ workforce development programs, which we will continue to
discuss with H.R. 4072.

H.R. 3670, to
require the Transportation Security Administration to comply with the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act:

Currently,
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects
members of the National Guard and Reserve from employment discrimination based
on military service obligations. Over the past decade, USERRA has become vitally
important to our nations Reserve forces. Without it, regular deployments, both
stateside and abroad, would greatly exacerbate unemployment problems for our
Reserve Component service members, who already face significant disadvantages
in a competitive job market as a result of increased operational tempo. USERRA
helps ensure that members of the Guard and Reserve who are called to active duty
can return to their civilian jobs and their seniority when they return from
military service. Today, USERRA protects all civilian and federal employees
with the exception of one federal employer, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). In an effort to
quickly stand up a new and effective law enforcement agency to ensure security
after 9/11, Congress created TSA with a specific exemption from traditional
employment protections, including USERRA, for its employees. More than a decade
later, TSA is still not required to hold positions and promotions for employees
who are called away to serve. The VFW believes it is time for this loophole to
be closed. The Reserve Component employees at TSA must receive the employment
and reemployment rights they have earned, and TSA should come into compliance
with the rest of the federal government. Closing this loophole is not only
beneficial for our service members, but the VFW believes the TSA will also
benefit by offering our military’s best and brightest the opportunity to pursue
a meaningful civilian career without the persistent threat of possible
termination for service obligations. In discussions with TSA, officials have
not indicated this change will have any adverse effects on security, so closing
the loophole would not impact TSA’s effectiveness in the field; it would simply
offer Reserve Component employees the piece-of-mind they deserve. It is our hope that the passing of this
legislation will send a clear message that veteran employment is an extremely
important issue, and the federal government must take a leadership role in its
promotion. We thank the committee for taking the lead on this initiative and
offer the support of the VFW for H.R. 3670.

H.R. 3524, Disabled Veterans Employment
Protection Act:

The VFW supports
H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act, but also has
concerns about potential effects on the businesses and corporations that we are
encouraging to employ veterans.

The legislation
guarantees that a veteran who must be absent from work to receive medical
treatment for a service-connected disability cannot be terminated from their
job because they are seeking such medical attention. The VFW fully supports affording veterans
employment protections as they receive care in conjunction with an injury
incurred through their military service.
Such protections are critical to helping veterans be productive in the
workforce.

This legislation
outlines a limitation of 12 workweeks during any 12 month period, and we
understand that questions have been raised about the necessity for a protection
that covers a full week per month.
Though the perils of a life of military service often cause veterans to
need regular visits as they work to overcome the visible and invisible wounds
of war, we must achieve a balance that does not jeopardize the career potential
of a veteran seeking medical treatment.
Potential employers are cognizant of the struggles a veteran faces, and
they often are willing to make limited sacrifices to employ a veteran. Over the years, the VFW has worked with
companies to promote veteran entrepreneurship and employment. Congress must do everything in its power to
ensure veterans have every career opportunity, and that effort must focus on
eliminating unnecessary hardships veterans encounter while seeking care.

To help ensure the
partnership between veterans and employers is an enduring one, and to provide
the best possible care while minimizing interference in the career endeavors of
our disabled veterans, we strongly believe VA must reform their medical care
appointment practices and procedures with an emphasis on efficiency for the
veteran. VA must do much more to ensure
timely access to high-quality and efficient care. Among other things, we believe VA must prioritize
the consecutive scheduling of appointments, must begin open access scheduling
and provide expanded hours for appointments, and must put in place measures to
prevent the need to reschedule an existing appointment. We understand that VA aims to alleviate these
concerns through the Patient-Aligned Care Team model of care, and we fully
support these and other efforts to streamline the impact of a veteran’s care
regimen at VA on their daily lives.

Veterans who have
earned the right to receive care at VA must not be punished in the workplace as
a result; yet these protections are critical to prevent medical conditions from
being used as a precursor to termination from employment. Such practices must be eliminated wherever
they are found, and this added protection is a welcome change for
veterans. Veterans want to be productive
members of society, and providing the tools and opportunities to that end must
always be a top priority.

H.R.
4048 clarifies provisions of the Veterans First Contracting Program (P.L.
109-461) as it pertains to contracts awarded through the Federal Supply
Schedule (FSS) for the purpose of meeting the percentage goal for contracting with
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), and the VFW is proud
to support this bill.

Sections
502 and 503 of P.L. 109-461 authorized a set of special contracting tools that
make it easier for contracting officers to offer contracts to SDVOSBs. These
tools include a statement of priorities relative to other set-aside groups,
such as 8(a), as well as dollar thresholds for certain type of procurement
actions such as sole source contracts. It also provides continuation of
veteran-owned status for surviving spouses of 100-percent service disabled
veteran owners for a period of 10 years.

Past
VA statements regarding the application of the small business provisions is
P.L. 109-461, now codified in title 38 U.S.C. Section 8127, have created
confusion regarding FSS purchases, leading VA to the perception that they must
first satisfy other contracting set-aside mandates before seeking out SDVOSBs
for FSS contracts. VA has even admitted that under certain circumstances,
SDVOSBs seemed to be last in line to receive FSS work. The VFW believes that
veterans should come first, as outlined in P.L. 109-461. H.R. 4048 would simply
clarify that the small business provisions of Section 8127 apply to FSS
purchases and do not expand the original intent of the law. By law, all federal
agencies have a goal to award at least three percent of their contracts to
SDVOSBS. We understand that VA awarded
nearly $450 million last year to SDVOSBs through the Federal Supply Schedules
and we believe this clarification will encourage SDVOSBs to qualify for VA
procurements through the FSS, and ensure all government agencies play by the
same rules with regard to veteran set-aside contracts.

H.R. 4051, TAP
Modernization Act of 2012:

As
the debate on whether or not to mandate participation in the military’s
transition assistance program (TAP) unfolded, the VFW learned that many service
members on active duty failed to understand why they would need to participate
in the program. However, once service members left the military, many wondered
why they never received comprehensive training and information on how to access
their earned benefits and successfully transition from military to civilian
life. Unfortunately, a veteran has no way to reasonably anticipate all of the
challenges he or she may face once out of the military, which is why the VFW
believes TAP resources must be available to veterans after they have
transitioned off of active duty. The VFW supports H.R. 4051 and its pilot
program to offer off-base TAP to communities where veterans have been hit
disproportionately hard by difficult economic times.

H.R. 4052, Recognizing
Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012:

The
VFW supports the idea behind this bill, but has some concerns about the bill’s
specific criteria for the Secretary to determine Excellence in Veterans
Education Awards. The VFW believes that VA would be interested in offering this
kind of rating to schools that consistently go above and beyond to best meet
the needs of their student-veterans, and we support offering this kind of
easy-to-understand evaluation for student-veterans. The difficulty is
determining quality criteria with which to evaluate institutions. The VFW
believes student-veteran advisory boards, student-veteran services, and
additional criteria determined by VA are good criteria. However, we are
concerned that membership in Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) and
graduation rates would not effectively capture whether or not a school serves
the needs of its student-veterans. Graduation rates are a flawed statistic as
currently compiled by Department of Education since the department only tracks
first-time, full-time college attendees. The VFW believes today’s graduation
statistics are nearly irrelevant for non-traditional students like
student-veterans and could skew decisions when used to evaluate how schools
best serve their student-veterans. The VFW recommends instead that VA evaluate
schools on a ratio of degrees conferred compared to enrollment each year. Discussions
with the National Center on Education Statistics indicate that schools must
already report these data points to the Department of Education, meaning the
data should be readily available.

SOC
membership poses the perpetual question about universal acceptance of credits
and reduced residency policies. The VFW wholly supports the mission of SOC and
we encourage schools to sign on, but we understand that some colleges and
universities must reserve the right to evaluate transferred credits on a
case-by-case basis, only award credit where appropriate, and hold fast to
reasonable residency requirements for all students. The VFW would support
criteria that a school is either a member of SOC or offers a clear policy on
evaluating and accepting military college credits. Two examples of non-SOC
schools that have excellent track records in serving today’s veterans are
Georgetown University and Columbia University. Both schools have dedicated
considerable resources to attracting veterans to their campuses and offering
the tools they would need to succeed. The VFW would need assurances that VA
would not preclude schools like Georgetown and Columbia from recognition solely
for failing to participate in SOC.

The
VFW also has questions over how VA will evaluate Yellow Ribbon participation.
For example, many state schools do not necessarily need to sign Yellow Ribbon agreements
since their enrollment policies already ensure that student-veteran costs are
completely reimbursed through the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. For example, my alma
mater, the University of Rhode Island (URI), is not a Yellow Ribbon participant,
but Chapter 33 already covers the full cost of education. The VFW would need
assurances that schools like URI, which have instituted proactive policies to
best meet the financial needs of student-veterans, would not be penalized for
non-participation in Yellow Ribbon.

Finally,
the VFW has questions over how many schools VA could recognize and whether VA
should establish a reasonable threshold for its schools of excellence. We agree
with the three-year evaluation model, but caution that recognizing too many
schools could only lead to further confusion for student-veterans when choosing
an academic program. The VFW suggests limiting the awards to one school from
each of the following categories in each state:
Public, 4-year; public, 2-year; private, non-profit; proprietary. The
VFW would also suggest that VA develop a “Top 10” list for schools in each of
these categories nationwide.

Last
year, a Senate investigation spearheaded by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) indicated
that veterans may not be receiving the quality education we had intended
through the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. The VFW believes this investigation caught the
attention of deficit hawks on Capitol Hill, who subsequently asked the
Congressional Budget Office to score several scenarios on how to scale back the
Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefit. The VFW believes this is the wrong approach. The
Post-9/11 G.I. Bill stands to be a transformative benefit for today’s veterans.
The VFW believes it has the potential to mold our nation’s next Greatest
Generation of leaders, and any efforts to scale back the benefit are a
disservice to the men and women who have fought in defense of our nation for the
last decade. With this in mind, the VFW sought to understand why numbers seemed
to indicate that proven battlefield leaders were making potentially bad
decisions on how to use their education benefits. The VFW discovered a critical
gap in VA’s efforts to provide quality information to potential
student-veterans with which they could make an informed, data-driven
educational decision. When we prepare our troops to go to war, we ensure they
have the best possible training to make life or death decisions in a moment’s
notice. When we prepare our veterans for college, the VFW believes we must
offer the same due diligence in preparing them to choose a quality school.

Since
VA implemented the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, the department has primarily focused on
ensuring student-veterans receive timely, accurate payments to finance an
education. The VFW agrees that this had to be VA’s top priority for the
fledgling benefit. Unfortunately, as more and more veterans sought to take
advantage of their earned educational opportunities, VA was left without the
proper resources to ensure that veterans knew how best to use their benefits.
Under Section 3697A of title 38, VA is obligated to offer educational and
career counseling to any separating service member or G.I. Bill eligible
veteran. Unfortunately, this counseling is only offered through a meticulous
“opt-in” process, and total available counseling is capped at $6 million each
year. In 2011, the VA proudly touted that nearly 1 million veterans were
enrolled in G.I. Bill programs. However, during the same year, only 6,400
veterans received counseling on their benefits through Section 3697A.

The
VFW believes that Congress must remove the cap to VA’s educational counseling
and mandate that VA contact veterans at different touch points prior to
utilizing their educational benefits in an effort to deliver this counseling.
Veterans who do not wish to receive educational counseling must still have the
option to refuse it, but the VFW believes that creating an “opt-out” system ensures
that all potential student-veterans understand their benefit and understand the
importance of their educational choice.

Unfortunately,
even with robust consumer education, student-veterans may still become the
victims of fraud, waste, or abuse. Veterans may be coerced into choosing an
academic program of little value to their career aspirations based on
misinformation or dubious enrollment practices. If a veteran feels he or she
has been a victim of fraud, waste or abuse, VA must offer a clear method of
reporting and recourse through which to track student-veteran complaints. VA
must then leverage the information gleaned from these complaints to find
remedies for students by working with State Approving Agencies, accrediting bodies,
the departments of Education, Justice and Defense, and all other pertinent
stakeholders. If a veteran receives an overpayment in education benefits or
files a fraudulent benefits claim, VA has the ability to quickly take action
against the veteran. VA must have the same capability to protect its
beneficiaries against schools that fail to deliver on their educational
promises.

The
VFW proudly supports H.R. 4057, which offers a critical first step in ensuring
that student-veterans are properly informed about their benefits and have
proper recourse for fraud, waste and abuse. However, in addition to creating
Section 3698 in title 38, the VFW wants to see Section 3697A amended to ensure
that VA must contact veterans prior to delivering G.I. Bill benefits, ensuring
they can “opt-out” of counseling. The VFW believes that VA is already taking
proactive steps to ensure current service-members receive this kind of
information through the transition assistance program (TAP) and that veterans
who apply for G.I. Bill benefits are exposed to critical information before tapping
into their benefits. We applaud these steps, but would prefer a legislative
solution to ensure that policies remain consistent beyond VA’s current
administration. World War II veteran and G.I. Bill success story Sen. Frank
Lautenberg will introduce legislation with many of these ideas to help improve
consumer education and consumer protection for student-veterans. We encourage
the subcommittee to work with the Senator and his staff to discuss how to best
implement the kinds of protections we know our veterans need.

Since
the original G.I. Bill of World War II, our nation has seen time and again that
educating our veterans helps ensure future prosperity. We have a unique
opportunity today to ensure that our veterans can use the benefits they have
earned to receive the quality education we have promised to them. The VFW looks
forward to working with the subcommittee on H.R. 4057 and other pieces of
legislation to ensure that we keep our promise.

H.R.
4072 will protect veterans’ workforce programs by moving the agency authority
from Department of Labor to Department of Veterans Affairs. The VFW supports
this bill, believing that placing all veteran issues under a single authority
will improve oversight and efficiency.

However,
the VFW has concerns regarding implementation of H.R. 4072 should it become law
by itself or in conjunction with H.R. 3610. First, the VFW requests that Congress
gives clarity in scope of the jurisdictional shift by including Section 1144 of
title 10, the TAP program, in Section 2, paragraph (a) of H.R. 4072, as well as
including conforming amendments that will affect title 10. Also, if DVOP and
LVER positions are consolidated, as recommended in H.R. 4072, National Veterans’
Employment and Training Service Institute must be modified to ensure that all
current and future employees are fully trained to the new standard. The VFW
must also have assurances that no positions will be lost in combining the two
job descriptions into one. Congress must also pay attention to H.R. 3610 to
ensure that if both bills are enacted that H.R. 4072 is amended to prevent the
defunding of the DOL-VETS workforce investment programs.

The
VFW believes that shifting responsibility for veterans’ employment programs to
VA will ultimately ensure better service for our nation’s veterans. However, we
must ensure that any legislation that passes ensures that veterans’ workforce
programs remain fully funded, and that any transition of authority happens with
minimal interruptions for both the veterans who rely on DOL-VETS services and
the highly-trained employees who deliver those services.

Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions
the subcommittee may have.

Information
Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives

Pursuant
to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, VFW has not received any
federal grants in Fiscal Year 2012, nor has it received any federal grants in
the two previous Fiscal Years.